« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

National Review: “they lived long enough for us to see them become the villain.”

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 15th, 2011 at 12:26 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

One of our co-founders, Ben Domenech, produces one of the best daily reads in my inbox. It’s the Transom. If you do not subscribe, you should. And if you do subscribe, today you got Ben’s thoughts on the two big conservative endorsements for Mitt Romney.

I think he hits the nail on the head and it is very much worth sharing.

 

Today the Washington Examiner and National Review endorse Mitt Romney. The Examiner does so honestly and forthrightly – you can read their rationale here. http://vlt.tc/1k1 I disagree with them, but as I’ve said before, I limit my assessment of candidates to what they actually do, not what they say – others are of course free to take a different path.

But the Examiner’s approach stands in stark contrast to NR. http://vlt.tc/1kb Most observers presumed the magazine would endorse Romney again – they did so in Photoshopped glory in 2008 – but instead of just doing so straight up, they wrote an editorial which is 80% reasonable if severe criticism of Newt Gingrich’s candidacy and 20% insulting rant at the conservative base. The NR editors eliminate every other candidate with flippant dismissals, in the end deeming only Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum as possibilities other than Romney – two incredibly long shots with, at the moment, no realistic paths to victory. @baseballcrank: “Why NR thinks that Perry should be counted out of the field but not Santorum… indefensible.”

The editorial is an honest expression of what National Review really believes and has for some time, and is one more yelp from the once-proud flagship publication of the right. Unfortunately, NR remains as tone deaf as it was during George W. Bush’s second term, when they drifted and meandered along uncertainly. Here, their sloppiness and extreme tone play to the advantages of their targets. Had they been a bit more humble, limiting the scope of this editorial to Gingrich’s flaws and holding back on the Romney affection, they might not have just handed a lovely hammer to every dismissed candidate. But that sort of perception isn’t anywhere to be found in those pages. I would not be surprised even to see Gingrich cite it approvingly as proof that he’s no insider, which is its own kind of disappointing hilarity. . . .

It’s a real shame, when you think what might have been over the past few years, had NR recognized the rising movement outside their traditional base which aimed to change the party and the nation – if it could have seized an opportunity to become the voice of a renewed conservatism. That hypothetical publication would’ve had the heft gained not through the bellowed orders of a far-off would-be commander but the power gained through trust, through recognition that they are honest brokers and courageous advocates for the cause of human liberty. Instead, as the saying goes, they lived long enough for us to see them become the villain.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.thehayride.com MacAoidh

    The National Review piece was atrocious, and extremely poor strategy. It reads as yet another dictate to the GOP electorate as to who they must vote for, and it’s quite obvious to any observer at this point that conservatives are sick and tired of being told what to do by their betters.

  • dpmapper

    Disagree with NR’s tone and tactics all you want, but they mean well and on POLICY (which is what really matters) they’re solid.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    I assume at some point they will tell us why we should vote for their preferred candidate instead of telling us, ad nauseum, why we should NOT vote for every other candidate that polls close-to or better than their mane man?

    AT least then we would have the basis of a dialogue. That is, instead of the propaganda peddling.

  • wbb1950

    NR has become calcified and unresponsive to changes in the political system. I do not know whether Chris Buckley is at the helm or influential, but his worship of Obama made Matthews’s statement of a tingle down the leg seem modest. Sick would be a better term. Not exactly a chip off the old block. If his father or Bill Rusher were still at the helm they would not have missed this opportunity.

  • wennejunk

    n/t

  • irishgirl

    this morning. Gives you a sick feeling in the gut. The guy I was listening to was railing against NR about how they’ve given the left a nice little weapon. Gee thanks NR. What is baffling to me is Santorum and Huntsman. Really???

  • dpmapper

    Are RedStaters really so sensitive that they’re going to disavow a conservative publication (quick to support Rubio over Crist, Paul Ryan’s budget plans, staunchly pro-life, etc. etc.) over one editorial that might hurt their feelings?

  • wennejunk

    Unintentional? Regardless, he does have good hair. Not quite as good as Perry, but hey.

  • swi2522

    WHO CARES WHAT THEY SAY THEY ARE MORE CONCERNED WITH MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO.
    I BEGINNING TO THINK MOST REPUBLICANS ARE CLOSET PROGRESSIVES LIKE OBAMA AND AGREE WITH HIS SOCIALIST POLICIES

    PERRY MAY END UP WINNING THE NOMINATION BY DEFAULT

  • http://www.libertylives.org madnorskie

    As bad as some at NR can be. They still have Mark Steyn, who agrees with Ben and Erick : http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285873/include-me-out-mark-steyn

  • Whacker77

    This is what happens when the field is so bad. Rather than unite around a real, credible, conservative choice, we are forced to choose the least worst option. In doing so, we assume the other choices are even worse and spend loads of time questioning anyone who doesn’t like our own least bad choice.

    I think the criticisms of Newt by NRO were fair, but the piece seemed inadequate to me. I say that not because they didn’t make a positive case for someone, but because they failed to say what I suspect most of them feel. That is the real choice in the primary ought to be none of the above.

    In an indirect way, that’s what NRO said because the only three they felt were suitable were Mitt, Santorum, and Huntsman. The last two have zero chance of winning and they chose not to make an affirmative case for Romney. Considering most at NRO are inclined to support Romney, that’s says a lot about him.

    The poor choices from which we’re being asked to choose is doing more to fracture the party than anything Obama and Democrats could ever dream of doing.

  • Bill S

    You missed the memo, right? This is a primary – the electoral season where contenders from the same party compete with each other for the nomination. You might want to do some research on primaries so you understand the process……..

    Oh, and while you’re at it, you might want to read this one.

  • dpmapper

    Let’s take a deep breath and resolve to be less petulant at one another.

  • trickamsterdam

    are the ones disavowing their readers/peers.

  • edintexas

    Call me sort of weird, but I find an endorsement for the Republican Presidential Nominee to be more than just “one editorial”.

  • dpmapper

    Please point to a line in the NR editorial that explicitly disavows a chunk of conservative voters.

  • Massachusetts_Transplant

    National Review favors Romney, RedState favors Perry, the Union Leader favors Newt, the Washington Examiner favors Romney, George Will favors Perry or Hunstman. What it says is that clearly there are different opinions out there. And, at the end of the day, who bases their decision on an editorial anyway? I am not sure why so many people are getting worked up about it.

    And as someone said above, overall the National Review is pretty solid, especially on policy. And didn’t they profile Ted Cruz several years ago – long before I read about him here.

    Relax folks – because there will be more endorsements to come. Are you all going to turn on Marco Rubio (half his staff are fmr Romney staff) and Paul Ryan (think he endorses Newt?) when they come out for Romney?

  • dpmapper

    EE:” I am so damn tired of getting whining little tweets and angry emails from people because I?ve dared to say something they perceive as an attack on their candidate. Sometimes I get those just for ? horror of horrors ? pointing out their actual voting record.”

    NRO attacks various candidates in their editorial. RedStaters whine. Who missed the memo?

  • Paul_Zummo

    There really is no good conservative mainstream journal of opinion. Weekly Standard is just as bad, and The American Conservative is awful on the other extreme. American Spectator can be decent at times but it’s not a very thoughtful publication, and their weblog is just a scary place to visit – especially in the comments. I suppose the New Criterion might be the best of the lot, but it’s more of a culture/art magazine than a political journal. Which leaves us with . , . the internet!

  • Paul_Zummo

    It’s the duplicitous way they went about it.

  • http://kevinholtsberry.com Kevin Holtsberry

    But I think this is a good motto …

  • tomatin

    GOP House with Omnicrap, NRO, Fox News, Romney you name it.

    We are merely a means to an end which is just getting us to the polls. Does anyone really think Romney will touch entitlements or Obamacare? The fact is the national GOP establishment wants Obamacare to campaign off of for years to come but never actually end it just like they have been leading us around by the collar with entitlements. GWB and Republicans had congress for six year and did nothing to dent entitlements in fact they added more spending with Medicare Part D.

    Support your State and Local conservatives because the national GOP is not going to help.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Manufacturing one “new” innovative position on the same issue once a month.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …recognizing that endorsers will often select “pivotal” criteria that are favorable to the targeted individuals.

    What is thematic on RS is that Perry isn’t a flip-flopper and, indeed, whatever alleged deviations from classic conservative thinking may have occurred, Perry has rarely deviated from principles of federalism…limited government…ethics…patriotism….

    So when a dismissive disregard of such an ordinarily key-concern [or even, when people are discussed, Perry isn't even mentioned...as often occurs on PMSNBC when they choose not to smirk], the judgment must be harsh.

    *

    Examiner

    We know that polling is particularly fickle, so when the opening salvo is predicated on “electability,” the credibility drops. This is particularly telling when, during the past fortnight, the “inevitability” of Mitt was supplanted by equally strident support for The Newt.

    Then, it’s suggested that Mitt has “temperament, experience, and cast of mind”that distinguishes him from The Newt, notwithstanding his meltdowns during the Debates…his having only served one gubernatorial term…and his having gone-negative ["zany" attack clearly orchestrated]. And, to the contrary, his business-experience is to be contrasted with the DC-insider image of The Newt, notwithstanding the strong “establishment” support provided to Mitt by both Party/Wall St. powers. No quote is more revelatory of what would become the tit-for-tat were he elected was this summary-sentence after having sampled a few of his policy “challenges”: “He knows he must accommodate to the GOP mainstream, not the other way around.”

    The three bullet-points supporting Romney are applicable across-the-board [contemplated, economy, optimism]. And, amazingly, the rest of the piece was devoted to dissing The Newt without mentioning anyone else.

    *

    National Review

    The opening ‘graph ignores the fact that Mitt’s only quibble about the Afghanistan withdrawal is that BHO’s deadline is pre-election ["Almost all of them seem to understand the dangers of a precipitate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan"]; thus, Mitt differs from the others [who eschew deadlines].

    The third cites his marriages and unpopularity, but not his accomplishments [except for his debating capacity]. Again, credibility is tossed to the wind unnecessarily by overt selectivity. When, in the fourth, his accomplishments are cited, they are overwhelmed by a recitation of character flaws in the fifth.

    The sixth finally cites the flip-flops, but where are Mitt’s?

    The seventh characterizes his flaws as deal-breakers, like no other that could be applied to Mitt’s competitors [how 'bout Paul's foreign policy?] This recalls the subjective attack on John Bolton; as much as I don’t like The Newt in many ways, such an editorial approach drives me to him..

    And what is Perry’s crime? “Perry has done an exemplary job in Texas but has seemed curiously and persistently unable to bring gravity to the national stage.” Another judgment call drawn from the meme of the MSM/LSM/ELM uncritically, tragically.

    The support for Huntsman/Santorum [who probably won't be candidates within a month] creates a straw-man argument for having pretended to create a differential-diagnosis; they are not evaluated critically [e.g., Santorum's gigantic loss to Casey, Huntsman's rejection of enhanced interrogation] and, thus, the implications of their candidacies are not noted.

    The closer poses three queries:

    “Which candidate is most likely to make the race turn on the large questions before the country, and not his personal idiosyncrasies?” Perry’s jobs?

    “Which candidate is most likely to defeat Obama?” Perry’s forthrightness?

    “Who could, if elected, form an effective partnership with Republican leaders and governors to achieve the conservative agenda?” Perry’s federalism?

    *

    It’s difficult to discern which editorial is worse; if only because of the blatant mis-framing of key-questions, I’d rank the NRO piece as marginally inferior.

    And nothing in any of the above postings would alter that conclusion.

  • earlgrey

    if this had come out earlier when Bachmann and Santorum could gain some momentum than it would be taken seriously. Right now, it just looks like something the dems would do.

  • concrusade

    No whining.

  • bobguzzardi

    Only few remaining SpecterRepublicans might vote for Rick Santorum. No Democrat will. No Independent will and, certainly, conservatives who know him best, won’t.

  • buddyp

    For a couple of the debates his hair was not quite perfect, I assume to make him look more like a regular guy. I think he got a loose hair transplant.

  • hahaiwin

    Don’t you think it’s a bit hypocritical to blast National Review for endorsing Mitt Romney when the Founder of RedState did so himself?

    Here is the quote from Erick Erickson:

    “So if the Presidential Preference Primary in Georgia were tomorrow, I?d vote for Mitt. Sure, he has waffled on social issues ? but I think that highlights his pragmatic approach to politics. He was never going to get elected as a pro-life candidate in Massachusetts and he knew it. I won?t fault him. I think, if he gets elected based on conservative support, he won?t betray that support in office.?
    ?Giluiani had leadership. Romney had conservatism. Make no mistake about that.The people who want a conservative have found their man, it seems. Mitt Romney was pitch perfect and willing to talk social issues ? something totally missing from Giuliani?s speech. And people noticed.I have to say that it was a tremendous speech. I actually could not listen to all of Rudy?s, but Mitt?s was great.?
    ?Mitt was followed by Ann Coulter who put the red meat conservative seal of approval on him. It was an excellent speech that should resolve all fears conservatives have about Romney.”

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …note Jennifer Rubin’s having IGNORED Perry in her debate-preview:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/sioux-city-debate-preview/2011/12/14/gIQABJ9jvO_blog.html

    This is the total-content [buried at the end of the Bachmann 'graph, at the end of the essay]: “She?s got a bit more flair than Perry and Santorum, and if she can avoid a last-minute stumble she could finish solidly in the caucuses and get herself back into the race.”

    If this weren’t so pitiful , it would be meaningful.

  • buddyp

    Can someone please list for me the differences in policy preferences (or other substantive differences) between National Review and the Tea Party?

    I assume one is that the Tea Partiers would have rejected an increase in the debt ceiling.

    And another is that Tea Partiers would have rejected any bailout of the banks.

    What else?

  • buddyp

    I don’t know if NR advocated raising the debt ceiling or some bailout of the banks. Those were just guesses on my part. By all means tell me if I’m wrong.

  • acat

    could replace Casey Junior.

    Alas, if you’re right – and I’ve no reason to doubt you, given your record – this means he may as well retire.

    Mew

  • bobguzzardi

    McCain Romney Giuliani etc. was a different time when “moderate” wasn’t such a bad word. It was a time when there were still jobs and we weren’t about to hit the fiscal iceberg of entitlements and spending.

    We now see clearly what there was to be seen but was obscured.

    Or, Erick Erickson isn’t perfect. oh no, not that. My world has ended, the sky has fallen. Can I go on?

  • Bill S

    .

  • bobguzzardi

    Rick Santorum received 797, 000 fewer votes in 2006 than 2000 and received fewer votes in EVERY county in Pennsylvania than 2000. Had he held his base, he would have won.

    Santorum teamed up with TransParty Specter to defeat Pat Toomey by a narrow margin.

    Santorum was heavily supported and financed by the unions. IBEW 98 in Phila, alone, gave him $50k, no doubt at request of Arlen Specter.

    I have met him and he is aloof and arrogant know it all. I know the conservatives of Penna and not one will support him. The Establishment won’t support him. Arlen Specter might help, though.

  • bobguzzardi

    What is the point of supporting a person who does not support your policies?

  • jgge

    Because Rick Perry is still terrifying all the pro-Romney people and they know that if Perry wins Iowa then he has the greatest chance of winning South Carolina and if he wins South Carolina then he is going to win the nomination. The Romney people remember very well the 2008 primaries campaign and how the declared dead campaign of John McCain came only few days before the vote were cast and won the nomination.

  • center77

    even by default, the reason the top two have had their weaknesses blasted all over is because they have many weaknesses, the only gen election weakness Perry has is his early debates and the insiders and establishment that hates him, who cares. They want Romney, but Newt won’t rock the boat, they don’t think he can win.

  • jgge

    thought for a second that Romney is the dream opponent for Obama who fits his class warfare campaign like a glove fits in a hand? Seriously are they that delusional to think that Obama is not going to destroy Romney with his Bain Capital CEO thing? Obama has only one strategy in this election and it is to run against the Rich and Wall Street and the Romney supporters are too stupid to nominate a Rich Wall Street Financier to run against him. When you meet Romney supporters make sure you ridicule their intelligence because they deserve to be humiliated and laughed at for being so stupid.

  • ghostship

    It might have been once but for a long time now it has been nothing but a propaganda magazine for the Republican Establishment.

    Honestly, I’m surprised that there are still some conservatives who read that rag.

  • acat

    it shows very clearly who her master is.

    Mew

  • acat

    Blaming an excess of orphaned holiday fudge that got dropped off on my doorstep today.

    Mew

  • acat

    Kjellander’s role as campaign chair in 2008 is one of the key reasons I distrust Romney….

    Mew

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    because of those three Giuliani actually turns out is the most conservative, and the one who you can count on to be constant.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    entirely possible, then I suspect that is exactly what will happen.

    Not that Perry would win Iowa, but that he would come in a strong third behind Romney and Paul (who is going nowhere after Iowa)

  • nancylee

    National Review used to be a good magazine. Now it’s a stealth forum for Establishment Republicans — i.e. losers.

    McCain, Dole, etc. And now Romney. I’m tired of moderates. They stick a finger in the wind to decide where they stand. They’re just plain boring.

    And they lose.

  • JSobieski

    nt

  • Whacker77

    In 2008, the magazine of William F Buckley endorsed Mitt Romney. They did that even thought WFB donated the maximum amount to John McCain. I guess WFB was a sellout to himself.

  • Bill S

    There was no “whining” about NRO attacking any of the candidates. Not a bit. What many/most/all of the RS contributors have been pointing out is that the National Review is a) spineless for avoiding a direct endorsement when that is clearly what they are implying, and b) a shadow of its former self, as a conservative publication.

    But thanks for illustrating the concept of moving the goalposts. The fact is that your original comment involved whining about contentiousness in the primaries, which, as I noted, is the nature of primaries.

  • buddyp

    I’m still waiting for an answer to my question upthread at http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/15/national-review-they-lived-long-enough-for-us-to-see-them-become-the-villain/#comment-150842

    You refer to policies they support. Surely then you can answer my question. I hope you’ll be so kind as to do me that favor.

  • trickamsterdam

    he was going to liquidate wasn’t an “early” debate. There have actually been a steady stream of gaffes and errors.

    I believe his book says social security may be unconstitutional. That’s death in the general (even in the R primaries) because it implies he might appoint SCOTUS justices who think it’s unconstitutional.

    His approval rating in TX is about where Obama’s is nationally, I believe. They know him best. Why don’t they like him? Once the attention was focused on him again, he’d be cut to pieces. It’s just people haven’t been paying attention to him. lately.

    Santorum’s another one. He’s made tremendous gaffes, it’s just that no one’s paid attention, because he’s polled so low. In my opinion Romney and Newt are the only two electable, but if you can’t stomach a compromise, I’d go w/ either Bachmann or Paul (depending on whether you’re a conservative or a libertarian).

    If you’re going to fall on your sword, why do it for a guy who is just as compromised as Romney or Newt?

  • acat

    which woman is the wife, or forgetting which position on an issue was taken the week before, or forgetting all his principles to endorse a turncoat, or forgetting basic science, or forgetting to take his meds.

    Mew

    (Newt, Romney, Santorum, Bachmann, Paul)

  • tyman

    Last night, Mark Levin said that Bachmann and Santorum are the two most conservative candidates.

    In what universe? Maybe on paper.

    Perry’s the one that’s put conservatism into practice!

  • romansdaughter

    nt

  • avagreen

    You wanna know why?

    The majority of these WANT HIM TO STAY HERE IN TEXAS BECAUSE WE NEED HIM!
    The poll found 51 percent of Texans approve of his job performance, and nearly two-thirds think he should not run for president. The poll was commissioned by the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle, the San Antonio Express-News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and the Austin American-Statesman.

    ?It?s not necessarily a vote of no confidence,? pollster Mickey Blum told the Dallas Morning News. ?Sometimes it?s a statement that, ?I like you where you are, keep doing a good job, just stay there.??
    http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/01/10/poll-texans-want-perry-to-stay-in-texas/
    This point was brought forward every time the polls to keep him inside of Texas was published.

    Tell all the truth. BTW, if Texans didn’t APPROVE of Perry, how is that he’s been elected three times as Governor, and every other race he’s been in: Ag Commissioner, Lt. Gov……..

  • avagreen

    The uber liberal Democrat Underground, trial lawyers who hate him for his tort reform, and the RINOs like K. Bailey Hutchinson.

    They especially hate him as well because of his attempt to outlaw sanctuary cities here, which the liberal newspapers (especially in Houston) caterwalled and screamed about until that legislation was tabled.

    DOES THAT ANSWER WHY SOME PEOPLE IN TEXAS DON’T “APPROVE” OF PERRY?

    We’re not one homogeneous group, ya know?

  • avagreen

    ………another faction that doesn’t approve of Perry.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    I eventually realized, that same year, just how wrong I was and retracted my endorsement. I sided with Fred Thompson.

  • greyeagle

    However the article on Newt and Perry was ugly. Governor Perry is a staunch Republican, one of the few candidates with experience running a large entity, energy experience, putting people to work, and also has some foreign policy experience. He is the best suited for the job of President. Hey, my better half is Democrat, but they will vote for Perry too. We both love the way he governs TX.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because we are “two minds, one voice”…and we sign-off our “blast” e-mails as “The Bob”!

  • hahaiwin

    I can understand liking a “new” candidate better, but to go from an endorsement for President and vouching for his conservative credentials to now blasting anyone that endorses Romney seems incredibly hypocritical to me, especially since there were no changes in his public policy record to warrant such a change in heart.

  • davesinsanantonio

    a different person four years ago. Heck, he was a different person last week.

    But, you liking of Mittens is poor reason to trash Erick. An endorsement in one race should not require a person to endorse the same candidate four years later.

    I mean, really????

  • bobguzzardi

    Rule #1 means voting for the person that I think is best, not what someone else thinks.

    Issues first.

  • bobguzzardi

    dr. bob and guzzardi are The Bob fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way.

  • bobguzzardi

    Another salient observation – the consultant tells you a lot.

    In Penna. BrabenderCox means, to me, Establishment as do a number of other consultants. Usually, they are unimaginative and have to be careful not to offend a future client. BOLD is not the forte of Establishment consultants who get paid whether client wins or loses.

    Rick Santorum’s consultant was BrabenderCox.

  • bobguzzardi

    Kevin Williamson is solid conservative originally from Texas and got to NYC by way of Ardmore where I live and where he edited the local weekly.

    It may be that NR was looking to the most electable.

    I have found the Club for Growth to be the most reliable analyst of candidates. Pat Toomey had been President.

  • bobguzzardi

    Exactly, of all the candidates I see, Rick Perry is the most formidable.

    Rick Perry has BOLD ideas along with polished skills of a practical politician. I think Fed Up is required reading and I think the recommended policies are politically feasible.

    Rick Perry is also JOBs and energy exploration as the means to creating jobs. Marcellus Shale is doing that in Penna.

  • bobguzzardi

    Alinksy Class warfare is what Obama does best and Romney is ideal target. Rick Perry is nearly invulnerable to class warfare tactics.

  • bobguzzardi

    This article references Tom Coburn’s Breach of Trust and details how Newt Gingrich undercut and betrayed the revolution of 1994

    How Speaker Newt Gingrich Betrayed the Republican Revolution Wed, 12/14/2011

    http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9188-how-speaker-newt-gingrich-betrayed-the-republican-revolution

  • williamjameson

    For one thing he should lay off the hair gel, it makes him look like a used car salesman. Kind of slick looking, slick talking and sort of outdated.

  • williamjameson

    good for his efforts. I killed my subscription in 2007 and rarely read online since I get Steyn through another source.

  • noveldog9

    Nancy just because someone says a person is a Conservative does not make it so. The same is true of those who mark someone a Liberal.
    Romney is a Moderate. On some issues he is very, very Conservative, yet on some he is more moderate, but even then not rally an ultra liberal as the news media would have you believe.
    He is the husband of one wife. He believes in God although his religion is different from most of us. Morally he is a good man and believes in his country, in fair play, and last he knows how to turn around failing businesses better than any of the other candidates.

    The best choice to win against Obama is Romney/Perry, then Romney/Bachmann. then Romney/Huckabee, and finally Romney/Gingrich, although Palin would be a strong VP choice also.

    I think they would do well to use her (Palin) as a stalking horse. Let her rip Obama and his cohorts apart and stir up the conservative base. She should be given a very important position by whomever finally wins the GOP nomination.

    Paul should be given a job helping to correct our tax system.

    Don’t under estimate Romney’s importance to the Republican Party.

  • smagar

    they’ve lived long enough for us to see them become the villain.

    It’s obvious that “them”—the new villain—is National Review.

    Who, exactly, is the “us” that’s determined that NR is one of the bad guys?

    Everyone who’s watched Saturday morning cartoons (do they still air those?) knows that villains aren’t comrades with whom you occasionally disagree passionately. No, they’re scum whose very presence threatens the community, and thus must be banished, if not eradicated altogether.

    Dick Armey once chided a Democratic Party talking head, who was engaging in hyperbolic attacks about the GOP, that “words have meaning.” More to my point, most people presume that, if someone uses a word, they’ve thought about its meaning, weighed its impact, and chosen to deliberately inflict that impact by saying or writing that word.

    I read NR’s editorial and the many responses to it by NR writers in “The Corner.” I read much that I disagreed with—but I saw no villains.

    Therefore, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Domenich. IMO, he’s let all of us down by using pejoratives (“villain”) that threaten to poison discourse between the different wings of conservativsm.

    For those who’d point out in response that “RINOs” have flung plenty of pejoratives at Redstaters in the past—point well taken. But, what do you gain by stooping to their level? Describing NR as a “villain” is, IMO, stooping to that level.

    Respectfully,
    smagar

  • geah

    were the only people who were allowed to vote, We would have Obama for the next 16 years, schwa folks

  • buddyp

    You haven’t answered my question. You refered to policies. So tell me where NR differs from the Tea Party (or if you prefer, from the conservative base) on policies.

  • http://www.redstate.com/wp-admin/user/profile.php docfreeman

    I just hope people will vote for the one they really think will do the best job, not someone the media has said is the only one who can beat Obama. If you do not vote for the one you really want then you have allowed the liberal media to vote for you. This is un-American so watch out for the brainwashing.

  • jgge

    supporters cannot see this 3 tons elephant in the room.

  • avagreen

    …….on Perry (or anyone else) because they’ve been planning their attack upon Romney for so long.

    Oh, wait…………

  • jimmyneutron

    unhappy with NR for quite some time. I was unhappy during the Bush years when they would not go against his insane spending and trying to buddy up to Teddy K and other progressive heros. I was even more unhappy during the recent ‘fights’ over the spending limit and debt when they consistantly sided with the ‘adults’ who wanted to compromise (surrender) rather than holding fast and fighting for our principles in the knowledge that things are going to change drastically in either a planned (~good) or unplanned (very bad) manner.

    NR appears to have hired many people who have given up conservative priniples for political ‘realism’, which of course is only realism in the beltway universe. Steyn understands where things are at and where they are heading and Andy McCarthy also gets it as far as economics go, but that is about it over there. It is too bad as there is so much potential for conservatism and a conservative future through mediums such as NR.

    I would much rather that they concentrated on issues rather than people, unless it is to point out where anyone in Republican leadership strays from conservative ideals. Use the bully pulpit to educate and inform – help potential voters to understand honest economics and political philosophy rather than promoting watered down mush in the hope that we can get someone elected who will be unable or unwilling to change much of anything.

    As for candidates, I am all for anyone who understands and speaks conservatism. I support anyone who is willing to do the heavy lifting that it will take to reduce the size, scope and reach of the federal gov’t. That person will need to indicate that they understand and accept the fact that they will be villified and attacked without mercy, that they will be spit upon by the progressives of both parties and that they are fine with that. I do not want anyone who seeks to be popular or liked by the opposition. No reaching across the isle unless it is to pull the other side closer to our ideas! I am fine whether that person is Bachmann, Perry or whoever, just so long as they really are a conservative.

    The last thing we want is a progressive, statist R at the helm when things really fall apart so that the statists of both parties can say – see, look how bad it is with a ‘conservative’ leading the nation. Remember hte 2008 election? Remember how O and his minions could say that conservatism had failed because Bush was an R and therefore a conservative? We don’t want a repeat of that mess.

  • blarman

    Get real. You may disagree with what NR posts, but hello – _everything_ is an editorial nowadays. If you’re going to do a piece, do it using facts to lay out where NR’s review goes sideways. Criticism for the sake of criticism is whiny and pointless – two things I normally reserve for liberals.

    We get it: Red State doesn’t like Romney. That’s fine. But don’t descend into bloviousness. Keep to the facts about why one candidate’s positions or actions are incompatible with conservatism. Everything else is a waste of your readers’ time.

    And just so you know, you really ought to spend more time researching Newt Gingrich. You spend an awful lot of time dissing Romney simply because he’s at the top, but suddenly now that Newt is topping some polls, you’re not willing to hit him about his infidelity, his association with Fannie/Freddie, his recent statements revering socialists/progressives such as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, etc.

    Stop complaining and get to your homework. You’ve done pretty well on Romney, time to do the same for the Gin-Grinch.

  • texastory63

    Long time subscriber, will continue but it does seem to have become elitist in a way that WFB wasn’t. W/regard to Romney endorsement, it would be interesting to know how much he has contributed to the magazine over the years.

  • groverc

    I came as a subscriber to National Review in the late 1980s when John O’Sullivan was the chief editor (and I believe editorial writer) of the publication. He was a brilliant, thoughtful, mature conservative. Bill Buckley could not have chosen a better successor.
    Tragically, Buckley was not nearly as wise with his choice after O’Sullivan’s departure. Rich Lowry is a bright, upbeat young man, but he has never had the maturity to hold fast to conservative principles, being WAY too enamored of the D.C. political game.
    Worse, he and whatever editorial board at NR makes decisions, decided to give editorial power to the flaky Ramesh Ponnuru, who is one of those young-ish conservatives that becomes a prime candidate to convert to statist-mad liberalism in his middle age, so frustrated is he by not being listened to. (See the “evolution” of David Frum.)
    Ponnuru, when he is not injecting the mantra of greater tax credits for families into nearly every article he writes, seems relentlessly to be looking for ways to say he is a “special” conservative — i.e. the only one who knows precisely what is best for this country — while undercutting all others.
    The influence of Lowry & Ponnuru is now indelible in NR’s editorial opinions. The maturity that must be an integral part of conservative though has been abandoned.

  • gwbramhall

    I don’t like to be told who to vote for any better than
    the next guy, but I always have a problem choosing
    when presented with another “straw vote” ballot.
    I like Newt. I even sent him some money in a moment
    of weakness. He has a lot of good ideas and can
    spin them out cleverly with no need of a teleprompter.
    Perhaps what he does need is a time machine to
    go back and erase that image of him on the love seat
    with Pelosi signing on with the global warming kooks.
    More currently he pretty much folded up his chances
    with his admission that that his reason for apparently
    being critical of free enterprise was because Romney
    had gotten under his skin. Perhaps he is not the man
    to take the argument to Obama and be our last great
    chance to get this country back on course.

  • conservative_dan

    Pffffft

  • carolynr

    I have no use for this paper. You will also notice that we are beginning to connect the dots. Notice how many of their people appear as analysts on Fox News. So…is the National Review really as “Conservative” as they claim. People thought so because they touted it so well. However when Kristol came out for Christie…I said…wait a minute here…what is going on…Christie isn’t Conservative.

    This entire cabal … Fox News, Hannity, O’Reilly, (Even Cavuto), Rove, Morris, Kristol, and the other pundit that sits in on Bret Beir, Malkin, Coulter. I’ve been buying this crap because I just haven’t seen it.

    We finally have a candidate with some really good ideas…and what do they do..THEY BLACK LIST HIM. As far as the NR endorsing Romney…hey…it’s all about who the Republicans want in there so they can keep this carnival going while we pay the jester in our taxes so they can keep their perks.

    It’s time for us to start calling sponsors of Fox News and telling them…we’re not buying what they are selling.

  • gunsrus

    by driving Colt Firearms out of the state. A REAL conservative ifin ever I saw one!

  • gunsrus

    big pot of gold and not much else.

  • jacobite

    Respectfully, back when NR was opposing the ’64 and ’65 Civil Rights Acts, they were still Right. As ‘conservatives’ (standing athwart history yelling “stop”) they were already irrelevant, as the New Deal had to be destroyed, or America was finished — just as ‘conservatives’ today can claim to accomodate the New Deal, the Great Society, and ObamaCare — but oppose any doggone new program, yessiree. Dorks like Romney are never gonna look some Leftie if the eye and say “You loose” as he pulls the trigger. So Romney is useless. After Pearl Harbor, somebody mentioned language-training to Halsey. “After this war is finished, the only place anyone will hear Japanese spoken is in hell.” That’s Right.

  • http://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com nathanalbright

    Four years ago I was in a much different place politically than I am now. I thought McCain’s willingness to work with Democrats was an advantage. Now it looks like only serious and drastic measures to hack at the Beltway Hydra will prevent our destruction as a great nation. As a result of the drastic change of my own sentiments, my tests for candidates have gotten considerably more strict. I imagine I am not alone in that.

  • trickamsterdam

    Sept, 2011,that had him losing to Obama, IN TEXAS [!], and then, later, w/ virtually the same approval/disapproval rating, that Obama, has, nationally.

    As far as why Perry’s been re-elected, despite his (lack of) popularity? I’m not a Texan. Ask them.. Maybe they like the fact that he fires beautiful guns off into the air in googled photos? Or they know the TX legislature basically runs that state, and KB Hutchinson wasn’t good enough?

    But, Obama, w/ his beyond mediocre approval/disapproval, may be re-elected if you nominate a man who’s not sure if social security is constitutional or not, and/or can’t count to three.

    That would explain that dubious decision by the national electorate:

    https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1DXCS_enUS421US422&aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=perry+approval+rating+in+tx

  • trickamsterdam

    the dangerous shape that I do?

    Because I think it’s about in the same position as a person that needs a heart transplant. Or a falsely accused prisoner on death row.

    If you needed a heart transplant, would you worry if the doctor had was a cheater or divorced? Or if you were falsely accused of a crime, whether your lawyer was a cheater or divorced?

    This is in defense of Newt, of course. My candidate.

    Although, it’s hard to say the man who was Al Gore’s campaign manager in TX (or whatever he was) is less of a crime than Santorum’s endorsing of Spector (granted, Santorum is a far worse candidate than Perry, because of resume/charisma etc). And, btw, Perry has also been known to “forget basic science”, like Bachmann (the world is 6,000-10,000 years old?).

    A vote for Perry will lead you right down the yellow brick road to Romney. Fine, if you see no difference between him and Newt. Insane, if you do.

  • WA_Cowboy

    wasn’t Reagan down to Jimmy freakin Carter by 20 points prior to nomination? Those polls that “prove” “electablity” don’t mean squat.

  • trickamsterdam

    No one in the world is buying peace either, but, then again, who was ever selling?

    Look, if you vote for Perry, you’re going to get Romney. That’s the point. He’ll never make in far enough to actually lose to Obama (if you care, hit my profile, and my respone to Erickson’s “insanity” thread today, where I explain why).

    If you don’t care enough to do that, who could blame you?

    Good news? I think Romney will beat Obama. Bad news? Get ready for Boehner-type “I got 98% of what I wanted” deals (and then it turns out he gave Pres Obama 2 trillion $, w/ no strings attached etc).

    Yeah, deals like that from Romney. Many, many of them..

  • trickamsterdam

    he’s crazy, you’re basically acting like anyone who supports him is crazy.

    It’s not like Cain. The man has an extensive public resume, but in Congress, and as a commentator (e.g. FoxNews, author).

    Newt attacks Romney as a greenmailer, and every one says “that’s what the Left does”. But don’t the Left also attack perfectly sane candidates as “zany”?

    They are using the techniques of the Left to destroy Newt, is what I meant.

    However, after reading Jonah Goldberg’s “defense” of all this (from a few days ago), I realize they haven’t sold out. He goes over their whole history, and it turns out…they’ve always been terrible @ endorsements!

    Hint: They didn’t endorse Reagan in 1980 because he was “too old”.

  • trickamsterdam

    Those were polls from TX. His home state. This year. 2011, in case your knowledge of our place in “space/time” is as weak as your reading comprehension (I’m kidding).

    It’s not about “electability”. It’s about the fact that the people who know him best, don’t like him. much. Possibly for the reasons I expressed…and he was also re-elected for the reasons I expressed.

    But yeah, he’s also probably un-electable when you look at the national polls…

    No offense, but you missed the point: to the point where you peed the bed.

  • WA_Cowboy

    my point was that those “Obama vs” polls are in fact pointless. They don’t tell anything nor mean anything at this point.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    and the people who know him best do not dislike him, that is Newt you are talking about. The only people who think that he is all the things you say are those who listen to the insiders that live in fear of his plan. The power pushers in Washing ton and other places do not want to lose that power, so they will say anything. Perry has a record that speaks for itself. I’ve met him twice, and the firs time he explained the tenth amendment to me in a way I?ve never gotten before. Second, he had a talk about the federalist papers. I am not stupid at all, even though I do make a few mistakes while typing. My transcript from my college just got me a few scholarships, so I would not call myself stupid, and I would not call Perry dumb.

    The whole thing is, a lot of people said Reagan was not smart enough to be president. They said he had no chance of being elected. If the country would have listened to those people in 1980 we would have had the Reagan years, and likely would have ended up with either Bush or Carter, which neither turned out very good. So I think polls for the gen election should be ignored for the most part. We should pay attention to the things that win elections like plans, records, and character.

    Perry’s plan is the only one offering real change, his overhaul Washington plan I think would attract people from all aspects of American society, because the Washington insiders and elected officials are not well like right now, and when people start to understand that Perry will send them home to live under the same laws that we live under, and will really make sure the illegal activity stops or people go to jail, I think Perry will be in a good position. Debates have not changed things all that much in the past, which is why we have had Bush, Reagan, or even Clinton. None of them were great debaters. The idea that because Newt and Romney will be better in debates that we will win does not make sense to me, we have to win almost every other battle, character, plan, and record. If we win those Obama has no chance.

  • WA_Cowboy

    nt